Even if every last byte of Gitlab and the bits behind it aren't OSS, it is lightyears ahead of GitHub in terms of source availability. And while I suspect the gap will only grow, I'd love for Microsoft to make me wrong.
yum upgrade
Done.
No problems for years now. Not a single one.
That’s not to say I won’t have trouble of some sort one day - but what software is 100% trouble free?
Edit: typos
I guess you folks gave it enough hardware to run properly. From what I'm reading that's what's missing in a lot of failing installations. It seems particularly resource hungry.
Relevant: https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/install/requirements.html#hardwar...
Changing that URL from "/ee/" to "/ce/" gives the same RAM requirements.
...of course, it replaced Upsource for us, and Upsource is incredibly resource hungry, so maybe we just have a very, very skewed frame of reference. :)
It’s probably the easiest thing to upgrade in our entire app stack.
I'm actually surprised that many people you know have had issues with it.
The kernel does not use a Github-style workflow, either.
From Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BitKeeper):
"The decision made in 2002 to use BitKeeper for Linux kernel development was a controversial one. Some, including GNU Project founder Richard Stallman, expressed concern about proprietary tools being used on a flagship free project. While project leader Linus Torvalds and other core developers adopted BitKeeper, several key developers (including Linux veteran Alan Cox) refused to do so, citing the BitMover license, and voicing concern that the project was ceding some control to a proprietary developer."
Not that it matters to anyone, but I do remember I found it shocking news :)
BitKeeper is by that time open source under Apache 2.0 License:
EDIT: Why the downvote?
I specially looked in the dictionary what the translation of "mittlerweile" [de] means in English ("by that time"). Additionally I did not write "BitKeeper was by that time open source under Apache 2.0 License", but "BitKeeper is by that time open source under Apache 2.0 License", which to my understanding of English grammar means that I am writing about something that currently holds. Additionally the German word "mittlerweile" (which by my dictionary means "by that time", as I already remarked) has exactly the meaning that it was different in the past - and my language feeling says this also holds if "by that time" is used in a present tense sentence. Even if not: if I were to say that it was already open source in the past (when Linus Torvald decided to create Git), I would have used the simple past tense. Using a present tense sentence for such a formulation does not make sense with respect to my understanding of the English grammar.
Regardless, you haven't explained what your actual point was. BitKeeper switching to open source after Linus's initial decision to use it doesn't refute the original commenter's point.